(33) discusses the presence of certain tropical and subtropical forms on the New England coast. These are ten in number.

Concerning some of the Crustacea described by Thomas Say, there has been considerable uncertainty, and in the case of three genera of Amphipods, Mr. Smith (34) presents us extended descriptions of Say's forms, and settles the disputed points. The genus Erichthonius is considered as belonging to a distinct subfamily from Cerapus, with which it has been confounded.

Dr. Packard is the only one who has published anything concerning the anatomy of the Crustacea, and his articles have all been upon the eye and brain of Limulus, and are all published in the pages of the NATURALIST, and hence do not need more extended notice here. A more extended paper on Limulus,1 though bearing date 1880, did not appear until the beginning of the present year, and will be noticed more at length elsewhere.

Dr. Brooks has published preliminary accounts of the embryology of the curious genus Lucifer (1 and 2). We understand that the complete history will appear in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. The most important feature discovered is that the young Lucifer is a Nauplius and not a Zoëa as is the case with most Decapods. This discovery adds additional probability to the statement of Fritz Müller that the young of Peneus is also a Nauplius.

Mr. Emerton (4) figures the nauplius of a barnacle.

Dr. Faxon (5) discusses the membrane which envelops the larva of Carcinus manas and the morphology of the zoëal antennæ; seven figures are given of the zoëa of Panopeus sayi, and one of the tail of zoëa of Gelasimus pugnax. The text is so condensed as not to admit of putting into an abstract, and students are referred to the article itself. The two folded plates accompanying the paper are very good.

Professor Smith's paper on Pinnixa (32) should be read in connection with that of Dr. Faxon, noticed in the review of last year.

BROOKS, WILLIAM KEITH

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

1. The young stages of the Crustacean Leucifer a Nauplius. Am. Nat., XIV, pp. 806-808 (1880).

2. The Embryology and Metamorphosis of the Sergestidæ. Zool. Anzeiger, 111. pp. 563-567 (1880).

The Anatomy, Histology and Embryology of Limulus polyphemus. Anniversary Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History, 1880, pp. 45, pls. 7.

3. The Rythmical character of the process of Segmentation, Am. Jour. Sci., III, xx, p. 293 (1880). Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., V, vi, p. 408 (1880). Jour. Roy. Micr. Soc., February (1881).

[States that in Lucifer, as in examples from other classes of animals, there are periods of activity and rest in the segmentation of the egg. This had previously been commented upon by several embryologists.]

Emerton, James H.—

4. Life on the Seashore, or animals of our coasts and bays, 8vo, Salem, 1880. [Gives figures, original and copied, of several forms.]

FAXON, WALTER.—

5. On some points in the structure of the embryonic Zoëa. Bulletin Mus. Comp. Zool., VI, No. 10, pp. 159–166, pls. 2 (1880).

HARGER, OSCAR

6. Report on the marine Isopoda of New England and the adjacent waters. Rep. U. S. Fish. Com. for 1878, pp. 297-462, pls. 1-12 (1880).

KINGSLEY, JOHN STERLING

7. On a collection of Crustacea from Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, with a revision of the genera of Crangonidæ and Palæmonidæ. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, 1879, pp. 383-427, pl. xiv (1880).

8. The Development of Moina. Am. Nat., XIV, pp. 114-116 (1880). [An abstract of Grobben's paper on the same subject.]

9. [Notice of Harger's] Notes on New England Isopoda. I. c., XIV, p. 120 (1880).

10, [Review of] Herrick's Entomostraca.

11. Carcinological papers of Paul Meyer.

1. c.

c. XIV, p. 121 (1880). I. c. XIV, p. 121 (1880).

12. Notes on the geographical distribution of the Crustacea. 7. c. XIV, p. 209 (1880).

13. Recent articles on Crustacea. 7. c. XIV, p. 519-521 (1880).

14. Carcinological Notes, No. 1.

34-37.

15. Carcinological Notes, No. II. 135-155, pls. 2.

Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., 1880, pp.

Revision of the Gelasimi. 1. c. 1880, pp.

16. Carcinological Notes, No. III. Revision of the genus Ocypoda. 7. c. 1880, pp. 179–186.

17. Carcinological Notes, No. IV. Synopsis of the Grapsida. 7. c. 1880, pp.

187-224.

PACKARD, ALPHEUS Spring, JR.

18. [Notice of Yung on] Influence of poisons on Crustacea. Am. Nat., XIV, P. 52, 1880.

19. Notes on Phyllopod Crustacea. 7. c., p. 53.

20. New Classification of the Crustacea. Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., V, v, p. 189 (1880).

[Reprint of article in NATURALIST for Dec., 1879.]

21. Structure of the eye of Limulus. Am. Nat., XIV, pp. 213, 214 (1880). Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., V, v, pp. 434 (1880).

22. [Notice of] Grenacher's Researches on the eyes of Arthropods. Am. Nat., XIV, p. 281 (1880).

23. [Notice of] Huxley on the Crayfish. 1. c., p. 282.

24. On the Internal Structure of the brain of Limulus polyphemus. Am. Nat., XIV, pp. 445-448 (1880). Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., V, vi, p. 29 (1880). Zool. Anzeiger, III, p. 306 (1880).

25. The structure of the Eye of Trilobites. Am. Nat., XIV, pp. 503-508 (1880).

SMITH, SIDNEY IRVING

A

26. Occurrence of Chelura terebrans, a crustacean destructive to the timber of submarine structures on the coast of the United States. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 11, pp. 232-235 (1880).

27. On some points in the structure of a species of the " Willemoesia group of Crustacea." Ann. and Mag., V, v, p. 269 (1880).

28. Crustacea of Mexico and Central America. Am. Jour. Sci., III, XIX, pp. 332, 333 (1880).

[Notice of A. Milne-Edwards' Etudes sur les Xiphosures et les Crustaces de la region Mexicaine.]

29. [Review of Kingsley] On a collection of Crustacea from Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, with a revision of the genera of Crangonidæ and Palæmonidæ [supra 5]. Ann. Jour. Sci., III, XIX, pp. 423-424 (1880). 30. [Notice of Huxley's] The Crayfish; an introduction to the study of Zoology. Am. Journ., III, XIX, p. 424 (1880).

31. Notes on Crustacea collected by Dr. G. M. Dawson at Vancouver and the Queen Charlotte islands. Report of progress of the Geol. Survey of Canada, 1878-79, pp. 206 B-218 B (1880).

32. On the species of Pinnixa inhabiting the New England coast, with remarks on their early stages. Trans. Conn. Acad., IV, pp. 247–253 (1880). 33. Occasional occurrence of tropical and subtropical species of Decapod Crustacea on the coast of New England. Trans. Conn. Acad., IV, pp. 254–257 (1880).

34. On the Amphipodous genera, Cerapus, Unicola and Lepidactylis, described by Thomas Say. Trans. Conn. Acad., IV, pp. 268–284, pl. 11a (1880).

:0:

ABORIGINAL STONE-DRILLING.

BY CHARLES RAU.

BOUT twelve years ago, I published an account of my experiments in drilling in stone without the aid of metallic tools,1 and, though during the interval my attention was constantly fixed upon archæological matters, I had, on the whole, no occasion for changing the opinions then expressed.

In the meantime, however, similar experiments, made by European archæologists, were commented on by Mr. John Evans, who, after a due consideration of the subject of stone-drilling, gives the following summary of methods:

"On the whole, we may conclude that the holes were bored in various manners, of which the principal were—

1. By chiseling, or picking with a sharp stone.

2. By grinding with a solid grinder, probably of wood.

1 Drilling in Stone without Metal; Smithsonian Report for 1868, p. 392-400.

3. By grinding with a tubular grinder, probably of ox-horn. 4. By drilling with a stone drill.

5. By drilling with a metallic drill.

"Holes produced by any of these means could, of course, receive their final polish by grinding."

It appears doubtful to me whether in North America (north of Mexico) metallic tools for drilling stone were used, considering that the only metal which could have been employed for such purposes was hammered native copper-a substance too soft to be applied to any kind of hard stone without the aid of a very efficient triturated grinding material. Nor do I believe that the former inhabitants had sufficient skill in working copper to fashion it into a tubular tool suitable for stone-drilling; and to my knowledge no such object has ever been discovered in the United States. Soft stone, moreover, could be bored with greater facility by means of properly-shaped flint implements, as will be exemplified in this article. Even bronze, I think, would be found less serviceable than flint for drilling stone of inferior hardness.

Dr. Ferdinand Keller, of Zürich, the meritorious investigator of Swiss lake-habitations, has made quite interesting experiments in drilling stone and other substances employed by the lakedwellers. He operated on stone with tubular bones of goats and sheep, and with hollow cylinders of stag-horn and yew-wood, these drills being inserted into spindles slightly pressed at the upper end, and set in motion by means of a bow. This apparatus corresponded in general principle to that figured by me on page 399 of the Smithsonian Report for 1868. Water and quartz sand, of course, were necessary agents in the operation. Dr. Keller expresses himself quite satisfied with his success; for there appeared the round, smooth hole, with the characteristic parallel striæ and the core at its bottom, which is always seen in unfinished antique specimens drilled with a hollow tool. The work, however, progressed very slowly, and the operator adds to this statement the observation that no prepared hollow bone, which might have served as a drill, has thus far been discovered in the lacustrine deposits of Switzerland. After these experiments it occurred to him to employ a hollow cylinder made of ox-horn, 1Evans: The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain; London, 1872, p. 48.

*For carving on hard stone, such as granite, bronze tools have been found to be almost useless. A trial of this kind is described in my Smithsonian publication entitled "The Palenque Tablet in the United States National Museum," p. 37, note.

and he obtained now more favorable results, owing to the yielding substance of the horn, in which the sand became imbedded and acted like a file. "The objection," he says, "that no drills made of this material have been discovered, is rendered invalid by the nature of the horns of bovines, which are totally dissolved in water in a comparatively short time."

"1

Methods like those employed by Dr. Keller, may have been practiced by the aborigines of this country; yet among the hundreds of bone and horn implements which have passed through my hands during my connection with the United States National Museum, not one exhibited the character of a hollow drill, and I am not aware that any of the collections of this country contains such a tool. But I must not omit to state what I learned in 1875 from a Warm Spring Indian belonging to a delegation which had come to Washington for the purpose of transacting business with the Government. These Indians were well supplied with pipes, mostly made of alabaster, and shaped like the ordinary catlinite pipes. With some difficulty I obtained from one of them the information that they drill the cavities of their pipes with bone tools, and, in order to strengthen his assertion, he led me to a case in the Museum in which objects of bone were exhibited. The cavities of their pipes, some of which were purchased from them, appear to have been produced by solid rather than hollow drills. According to Catlin, the pipes made of the material now named after him, are (or were) drilled by means of a wooden stick, in conjunction with sand and water.

In my account of drilling, referred to in the beginning of this article, I should have stated with greater emphasis that, in illustrating the possibility of perforating very hard stone by employing a revolving stick and sand and water, I was far from underrating the efficiency of a flint tool for drilling stone of less obdurate character. In operating with a well-pointed flint arrow-head, firmly set in the cleft end of a short stick, on a fragment of a pierced tablet of tolerably hard slate, I produced in about half an hour a small perforation in no way distinguishable from one made by an aboriginal worker in stone. The perforations in these tablets are either conical or bi-conical. By drilling from both sides of the fragment I made one of bi-conical form; if I had continued

1 Keller: Durchbohrung der Steinbeile, Hirschhornwerkzeuge und anderer Geräthe aus den Pfahlbauten, in: Anzeiger für Schweizerische Alterthumskunde; Zürich, Juni, 1870, S. 139–144.